₦airaland Forum

I did. I'm so sorry about that.

noetic2:
should I take this to mean that u dont feel competent to address this questions?

Take it as whatever you want. You and I will know the truth of the matter, though. And, with that, I won't be responding to you until you've agreed to the conditions I set out and then started the thread with the questions you were so sure would be death of the theory of evolution. Take that for whatever you will as well.

noetic2:
Stop all this gimmicks. Just go to that thread and answer the questions. Then I can open a new thread for more. Dont be lazy!

Irony? Yeah, you just blew up my irony meter. I'm not waddling into an eleven-odd page thread to indulge you. It's simple, agree to the condition and start a new thread with your "pertinent questions".

Ridiculous.

what was ur question again?

*sigh*. Someone remind me why I do this again? I'm taking a break. Page me when you have agreed to the condition of the thread, etc.

noetic2:
what stops u from answering the evolution related questions on that thread? u want me to embark on another fruitless journey with u?

just start by answering those questions.

No, start a thread like you said you would, and agree to the simple, fair conditions set. It's not so difficult, and hey, who knows, you might be the one to falsify the theory of evolution.

So why did u ignorantly imply initially that they could not mean the same thing? This is annoying.

Um, I didn't. You might want to read that again. Or you can just fall back on your classic line when flummoxed, shown wrong, etc. :"you didn't even answer my/the question". Your choice.

noetic2:
absolute Rubbish.

The OP  they did not believe cos they saw no rain. . . . .how does this imply that they saw no rain for 4004 BC? did u bother to ask the OP?

You might want to read my previous post again; you know, the one that starts with a oop's, then goes on to mention Ussher, and 2348 B.C.E. Yeah, that one.

They saw no rain coming, between the time of noah's preaching and the eventual flood. is that too hard to deduce?  

The English language. Learn it, if you want to use it. The OP wrote: "The people never saw rain so disbelieved him".

Do you want me to pull up the definition of the term "never" and how it effects on a sentence depending on how it is used?

noetic2:

There's here, for example:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=284043.msg4040168#msg4040168

This is ridiculous. You SHAMELESSLY refused to answer the poster's question. You SHAMELESSLY refused to define esensed's ontology.
I simply ignored u, cos the debate was meaningless.

You only posted in the thread to display a nihilant semantic skill. I am disappointed u could actually refer to this thread.

Yeah, funny you're the only one that feels that way. Oh look, it's the classic noetic line: you refused to answer the question. From you, the line has become a compliment. I like that thread. You should read it again because I believe it's thought-provoking.

and here:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=277635.msg3973257#msg3973257
Same thread earlier response:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=277635.msg3953076#msg3953076

This is DISGRACEFUL.

In The OP I asked for the Scientific and intellectual evidence that establishes the belief that God does not exists
Please read ur disgraceful response again, and see if u ATTEMPTED to answer or produce such evidence.

Tut, tut! Maybe you should read my responses again. There are only so many ways to answer a call for "proof" that a triangle is a square.

Oh, look, a whole thread's worth:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-259004.0.html

This is hilarious 

You meddled up all the issues of the post. You were neither objective nor did u answer my questions.
I eventually gave up on u cos u could not differentiate between a societal norm and custom (on one hand) and morality (on the other hand)?

Or not. Ooh, that's another thread I like. It was a clever one.

You can start from the threads u raised to return there and objectively answer my questions. . . .This is hilarious 

*sigh* When will I learn that fundamentalist Christians are never wrong, eh?

noetic2:
This is exactly what I meant by running in circle. How did u deduce that there was no rain for 4004 BCE?

KAG is at it again!

Oop's, while there was no rain before around 4004 BCE - because that's when the Earth and the universe were created, don't you know - the date I should have mentioned was 2348 b.c.e which is when the flood occurred. *wink* *wink* *nudge nudge*. Well, that's if you're one of those Biblical literalists. Using Ussher's very literal reading of the Bible, and juxtaposing it with the bizarre claim that there was no rain before the mythical flood gives us no rain before 2348 B.C.E.

Yay, one where Darwin and Wallace are 300 years old:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=250689.msg3634380#msg3634380

P.S. What I like about that thread is that in post 120, we see the classic Noetic response. Quoting a detailed post addressing his misconceptions, Noetic's erudite rebuttal was (you guessed it):

Your line of tots? I don't know your tots. I was, however, able to understand the thoughts you were trying to get across, whic is why I was able to respond adequately to them.

First, you assumed the theory of evolution had been around for 300 years. You were wrong on that. I gave the right time frame in my first response to you.

Second, you implied that a theory could be changed into something higher. You were wrong. etc.

Finally, to answer your question, theories - scientific theories - are what contain facts. Theories don't become facts, they have, instead, as part of their make-up facts and observations.
is that so??  Huh Huh Huh Huh Huh
there is no point debating evolution in relevance to creation, if i have to educate u on the subject u are supposed to be postulating.
Go n do ur home work.

It is so. I'm pretty sure you aren't capable of debating neither evolution nor creationism, so it's moot for you to suggest that you may be able to educate me on the subject. That is not an ad hominem, simply a statement on the capabilities you've displayed so far.
Your supposed knowledge of evolution truly amazes me.
hisses and walks away

Wonderful rebuttal.
depends on how u look at it. abiogenesis in reference to prokaryotes as the first inhabitants of the earth, is a claim buttressed by evolution.
So how do u intend to seperate this claim, which is the underlying basic of  evolution from the debate when evolution is compared to creationism.

No, abiogenesis isn't in reference to prokaryotes as the first inhabitants of the earth, etc. I don't no where you got that nonsense from, but it's wrong. In fact, what evolution - as in the theory of evolution - deals with is how species may have originated from life. Now, life is currently defined in a very strict way, and it's that criteria that is used to distinguish the study of speciation in biological entities. Abiogenesis, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily need biological entities. However, if it can be determined how life started on earth, abiogenesis will come into contact with the theory of evolution, but it doesn't happen the other way round (i.e. the theory of evolution enroaching on abiogenesis)  

You're right, there's probably no point pushing on, mostly because you don't understand even the basics of the different theories that deal with separate aspects of human enquiries.

[size=14pt]keep chatting shit and refuse to address the basic questions raised.[/size]

Huzzah

noetic2:
@ KAG u can start by answering the evolution related questions in the OP here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-279631.0.html

Hey, just in case you missed it the last few times it appeared:

start a thread with those "pertinent questions" and time willing, I'll participate. The conditions were and still are: "Don't duck out of questions when I ask them in return, and don't try to simply handwave away any of my responses - basically, engage actively with the contents of any potential responses. I'll also promise to do the same. Deal?"

noetic2:
whats the different between posers and a questions? another way of running round in circles.

I am taking up ur challenge. Please expect a detailed thread soon.

With all due respect - meaning none, I guess - you're not a very bright lad. Look up the other meanings of "poser" and you'll know why it serves as an excellent pun for what you do.

Anyway, so much for taking up the challenge, eh?

toneyb:
Engaging neotic is a waste of time I must say, How do you start engaging a person that believes that the stars in the sky fought along side men in battles because yahweh turned them into warriors that shot fire balls from the sky against his enemies. This same deluded person turns around and laughs at the moslems for believing that their prophet divided the moon into two and the moon bowed down to him. Whats the difference? You ridiculously believe that stars fought wars along side men, they also ridiculously believe the moon was divided in to two.

That's a good point. Although, I see he disputes that he believes that. We'll see.

noetic2:
you have NEVER for ONCE either REFUTE or show that I am WRONG.

There's here, for example:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=284043.msg4040168#msg4040168

and here:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=277635.msg3973257#msg3973257

Same thread earlier response:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=277635.msg3953076#msg3953076

Oh, look, a whole thread's worth:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-259004.0.html

you on the contrary are fond of running in circle and NEVER answering any question raised. . . . I can resurrect threads that establish this fact.

Please resurrect or, at the very least, provide links to those threads. Thank you.

noetic2:
what are thou talking about?

Oh dear! Just in case there were any doubt in my mind about your parsing abilities, eh? I was talking about this: "The people never saw rain so disbelieved him. The rest is history"

You know, the one where the OP implied there was no rain before approximately 4004 BCE; and it's history.

Jaylone:
The people never saw rain so disbelieved him. The rest is history.

Wait, what? Who never saw rain? What's history? I don't think you're using the word "history" right.

noetic2:
Frustrated at what?

"frustrated with being constantly refuted and shown wrong that the only avenue left is threads starting with mockery". There. I quoted it for you.

. . . , I am always having a very healthy laugh at many posts on this forum

Of course you are. Who doesn't?

noetic2:
are u alien to the realities of nairaland? how many of the posers raised against evolution have u or ur band mates been able to answer?

About evolution? None. I also seem to remember asking you - on more than one occasion, I might add - to start a thread with those questions (I guess you're calling them "posers" now. Very apt) and I'd participate if you would. As I recall, your response was the equivalent of a limp wrist and a pathetic slinking away. So much for tearing apart.

Incidentally, you do realise that simply, indiscriminately throwing questions at posters isn't the way a theory is "torn apart". If it was anyone duplicitous enough could claim that a Muslim playing twenty questions on Nairaland has disproved Christianity.

Pastor AIO:
What did Francis of Assisi mean by these words:

Works pay more dividends than talk. Actions speak louder than words. Those are two expressions that come to mind when I read the attributed quote. In my opinion, St. Francis was advocating something I think many Christians forget: behaving "Christ-like" is probably the best way to show people the validity of the Gospels. Essentially, acting with love is a better witness to the love of Christ in a person than simply talking about love and not necessarily showing the evidence of such supposedly live changing love in one's life.

Two pence.

Aw, I like satire. I think the op is a pretty decent attempt at satire. Good work. But now, I can't keep from wondering what to make of a poster so frustrated with being constantly refuted and shown wrong that the only avenue left is threads starting with mockery. It almost makes me sad. Almost. Good lulz still. . . I guess.

noetic2:
just like evolution has been torn apart.

By whom? So far it remains unfalsified, and the theory of evolution is largely the same in that regard - unfalsified.

esensed:
ok kag but hope u have followed my thought pattern? about proving my ontology?

No

esensed:
Now what is the meaning of the term "ontology"? I like this one as I think it best sums it up: "An ontology is a specification of a conceptualization." Which in layman's terms means ". . . a description (like a formal specification of a program) of the concepts and relationships that can exist for an agent or a community of agents."[2] Doesn't that just blow you away? What I particularly like about that description is that, despite the claims of the author, it covers many thorny aspects of what exactly ontology describes in philosophy

from ur reply above, i choose to accept your layman's definition and it speaks so well about what ontology means.

Okay.

"Your argument appears to be illogical, more so because it's built on a straw man of what it means for atheists to reject the claims made on behalf of gods."

What's that? You are a six-armed Leprechaun with torpedoes for legs and jet into space at least once a day for radioactive supplements? I don't believe you. That doesn't preclude the person making th claims having an ontology, though.

that is what i was saying in my post, that if i CHOOSE NOT to make my ontology known to you u can assume me to be anything from the fits of your imagination, philosophy experience and you will be sincerely wrong at it. and of a fact you are wrong.

Well, not anything - that's why I don't believe you're a six-armed leprechaun. I also wouldn't be wrong if I stick to descriptions that are general - much like a general idea of ontology - and humancentric. Anyway, this might be a good time for you to get to your point.

do you see your fallacy and limitation as an athiest about my ontology?

No.

noetic2:
why do u like walking in a closed circle? since u have established that esensed has an ontology, what stops u from defining/stating that ontology?

Sure, I'll get right on it as soon as you show me where I've claimed to be omniscient or psychic. And, no, sarcastic commentary don't count.

esensed:
of certainity u do, but u know i can CHOOSE not to state my ONTOLOGY.

Then why the song and dance?

"dont you think it is merely stupid or outright foolishness that if i reveal myself to you (via this website created by seun) and u in your understanding decide to say that based on some analysis and conclusion, that what I CHOOSE to show u via this medium, is not right or proves that i dont exist hence i dont have an ontology. And moreover, if i refuse to use any forum beside nairaland to lend credence to my ontology, does that mean my report about myself in nairaland is false?"

since u certain, can u logically answer the above.

"Your argument appears to be illogical, more so because it's built on a straw man of what it means for atheists to reject the claims made on behalf of gods."

What's that? You are a six-armed Leprechaun with torpedoes for legs and jet into space at least once a day for radioactive supplements? I don't believe you. That doesn't preclude the person making th claims having an ontology, though.

in addition, if as a result of some error on seun's website becos of some bug, or becos the browser type u used is not compatible with the website setting of seun etc that can alter the presentation of myself through this forum, does it mean that WHAT I CHOOSE TO SAY ABOUT ME IS FALSE HENCE I DONT EXIST becos of how it was distorted?


THANKS FOR REPLY GOD BLESS!

You're still not making sense. It's like you're responding to some other argument on some form to which I'm not privy. *shrugs*

pilgrim.1:
Lol, but no - yours was in a class of its own, couldn't have improved on it.

Aw, thanks. You're so sweet.

esensed:
thanx for honestly stating u do not know my ontology

becasue u dont see me,
hear me,
you dont feel me,
you can only accept [i]WHAT I CHOOSE[/i]to reveal about myself, my concept and my relationship to all around me.

Exactly. So, are you, um, going to reveal the intricacies of your ontology - or what you've discovered in relation to the subject? or are we gonna have to play twenty questions? What we know for some sort of certainty so far is that you have an ontology.

dont you think it is merely stupid or outright foolishness that if i reveal myself to you (via this website created by seun) and u in your understanding decide to say that based on some analysis and conclusion, what I CHOOSE to show u via this medium, is not right or proves that i dont exist hence i dont have an ontology. And moreover, if i refuse to use any forum beside nairaland to lend credence to my ontology, does that mean my report about myself in nairaland is false? i dont think so

what do you think i will take u to be?

Ontology - I don't think it means what you think it means. Your argument appears to be illogical, more so because it's built on a straw man of what it means for atheists to reject the claims made on behalf of gods.

esensed:
hi kag

please r u still around,  or any athiest can help by proving what my ontology is?

thanks

I'm sure we can help. What parts of your ontology would you like evidenced. Try to state them as clearly as possible, or it may become tricky.

esensed:
hello all

thanks to all that contributed.


see kag, what u rote to me i simply explaining around my simple question 'prove my ontology".
good u have started by defining it

Thank you.

Which in layman's terms means ". . . a description (like a formal specification of a program) of the concepts and relationships that can exist for an agent or a community of agents."

good can u describe the concepts and relations that can exist of me?

No. I don't know you. I know absolutely nothing about you. Can YOU describe the concepts and relations that can exist of you?

What is esensed's ontology?

It is after we've deduced that esensed has an ontology - and I already did so - that we can ask esensed, not me, what his or her ontology, away from the basic generalities, are.

Wow, thanks pilgrim1, you totally understood my post and responded to the posts to it probably better than I could.

noetic2:
I do agree completely with ur assertion here.

I guess I was harsh and probably biased in fast dismissing KAG's points by pre-empting that the subject would lead to a debate on God's ontology. But that was born out of the fact that,

1. The question "can u prove my ontology" is very straight forward.

I answered it straight forwardly in my second post. The first post was. . . well, lets' think of it as a parable.

2. KAG never directly/indirectly attempted to answer this question (in my opinion)
3. KAG is fond of running in circles with words.

With all due respect, considering that's your general response to posts you can't tackle, I'd say it's your way of being complimentary.

KAG could have simply asked esensed for clarification, instead of going into the mantra of defining ontology and trying to establish without proving that esensed has an ontology (which would also serve as a perceived "evidence".

I thought the OP asked that his or her ontology be proved. Yes, that is what the OP asked. I didn't prove it, I gave a logical argument and evidence.

My point is this,  note that
1. KAG refused to ontologically define esensed on the premise that there are several concepts of ontology.

You will note that no where prior to my post did esensed ask that he or she be ontologically defined. Which is akin to a point Pilgrim1 made: it's almost like you want me to respond to a question that isn't there. A question that you formulated out of the blue and expect to be psychically known by others. I refuse to play that game.

Basically, no, I didn't do what you think I should have done based on the premise that you state.

2. KAG however established that by asking "can u prove my ontology?" esensed simply proved that he was a dasein, which in reality does not produce a convincing analogy of esensed's ontology. For instance, I (and presumably esensed) was expecting an ontology that included his (esensed) meta-physical components, hindsights, abilities and limitations all summed up in the basis of his (esensed's) existence.

I'm not a mind reader. Since I'm rushing through these, I'll use a quick analogy. Asking someone to prove my ontology is similar to asking that my physics be proved. The best response, especially after several posts with the same question, is to prove only the basic, general outlines of physics, since we already know that based on the persons words there is a physics that can be evidenced.

Deducibly KAG has limited the scope of esensed's ontology to the fact that esensed might be a dasein, based on grammatical function without stating the ontological basis that establishes:
1. The nature of esensed's existence
2. essensed's life
3. The very essence of this life.

No, once again, the OP didn't ask for that. And all things in the human sphere are based on grammatical functions. I don't see the problem with using grammar. Unless, I'm misunderstanding you.

esensed:
kag

simply u cant explain plainly my ontology scientifically -- [size=20pt]why cant you just own up and prove my ontology or admit that you cant prove my ontology. em seun has provided you with what you may use to prove my ontology am waitin[/size]

Are you sure you want to go down this route? Now, clearly, based solely on reading the way you've used the word, I'd say you have no idea what ontology means. That makes your "prove my ontology" clamour all the more interesting to me. I'm going to respond in a slightly more detailed manner because I will like to see where this leads.

First, I'll start by letting you know that like science, I don't do proofs - well, except for when I drink alcohol and when I do maths^[1]. To that effect, there will be no "proofs" only evidence based on the logical reading of your posts. It will be short, though, because you refused to try to understand what you were trying to ask from the Jesus story I posted. Nor, thinking about it, understand what Pastor AIO wrote in response to your op.

Now what is the meaning of the term "ontology"? I like this one as I think it best sums it up: "An ontology is a specification of a conceptualization." Which in layman's terms means ". . . a description (like a formal specification of a program) of the concepts and relationships that can exist for an agent or a community of agents."^[2] Doesn't that just blow you away? What I particularly like about that description is that, despite the claims of the author, it covers many thorny aspects of what exactly ontology describes in philosophy: studies about the nature of existence, life, essence, etc.

Having gotten an idea of what ontology means. What, then, does one mean when one states or implies they have an ontology? Bear in mind the claim here isn't I am a being, or I exist, or I am an ontological manifestation, or, even, I bear traits identified in ontology. The claim or implication was that you have an ontology. Something you subsequently asked to be "proved". In light of that, it is easy to state unequivocally (a surprising state of things given the logical, literal reading that has occurred thus far) that you'd like atheists to show evidence that you, the OP, have the capacity for the study of nature, existence and other such things. To get even more technical - and as it is philosophy, it's hard not to - to show that you have the capabilities to be a dasein.^[3]

If that is case - and it is the logical conclusion I drew from your words - what remains is to show that you have the abilities to not only think, but to think in such a way as to ask questions about existence. Questions about what "it" all means. Can we in fact show that based solely on your words? I think we can.

What you wrote in the op is probably sufficient for the task. You wrote: "please can you prove my ontology?" Reading that and parsing the words correctly, what you imply is that you already have an ontology. That is, in your question, you ask if we atheists can prove your description of existence, etc. From that we can gather that you do, in fact, already possess an ontology. That in itself is evidence (I refuse to do proof) that the broad scope of your study or analysis of your manifest person, etc has some basis. The evidence here has small caveat: that since you didn't explicitly state your ontology in full, then we have to assume based on the notion that the gestalt^[4] of all daseins have a basic structure built on language, that your ontology will have to follow the usual pattern, and it is the vague outlines that you want proved. Q.E.D.

Oh, also, in case you're wondering, you're a dasein because you have an ontology.

P.S. If you have any questions or need me to be clearer in some part, then please don't hesitate to ask. I'll get on it as soon as I can.


[1] It's a paraphrase of "proof is for maths and alcohol"
[2] http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/kst/what-is-an-ontology.html
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasein
[4] Gestalt, in this instance, is Lacan's use of the term: "the visual image of another member of the same species, which is perceived as a unified whole." (http://nosubject.com/Gestalt)

esensed:
kag
talk about me first now that is my ontology

But don't you see, dear fellow, the answer you seek is within the short story I posted. Figure that out and you'll find your lost ontology.

esensed:
hello

please can you prove my ontology?

And Jesus said unto them, "And who do you say that I am?"

They replied, "You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the context of our very self-hood revealed."

And Jesus replied, "What?"

You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist.
[Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, January 14, 1991]


“A man can have sex with animals such as sheeps, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine.”

- Ayatollah Khomeini, from Khomeini's book, "Tahrirolvasyleh"


Perhaps there was an organization in Phineas' day known as the N.A.A.C.P. (National Association for the Advancement of Canaanite People) who took exception with this teaching of segregation. Perhaps there were pulpits proclaiming a more tolerant and socially accepted view and government agency crusading for 'affirmative action.' We really do not know; but we do know from the Bible story in Numbers chapter 25 that the Israel people began to disobey God's law, accept integration, cultural exchange and a type of interracial marriage, and thus were struck collectively by a plague. Phineas was the man who courageously fought against the racial treason even to the point of bloodshed, and he too was honored by God.
[Pastor Pete Peters, THE BIBLE: Handbook For Survivalists, Racists, Tax Protestors, Militants And Right-Wing Extremists, ND, Scriptures For America, La Porte, Colorado, pp. 4-5]

noetic2:
Plagues are good and God knows this. Without them he couldn't teach us how to stop them. -- Jerry Myers

I don't know how 'real' Noah was, or how real Jonah was either, but the signature of the Divine is all over their stories. Since I do things on a regular basis that defies the laws of physics, I can speak with some authority on the matter. -- vtailor

Jesus rose from the dead - no Jew or Muslim did that. Please spare me the fact that Jesus was a Jew, which is true -- duke32

Atheists are known for making absurd claims for which there is no documentation, or claims for which there is considerable documentation in the opposite directions. Or even claims for which there is absolutely no documentation and which all the documentation contradicts -- Reese

You seem to be concentrating on all negative affects of infant mortality. As I said some babies are just to good to live in this world. -- skii

Someone's been to fstdt. There are many hilarious quotes from fundies there. It was Trinidad and Tobago on CARM (CARM has way of breeding idiots) that said the Atheists are Muslims thing.

This is still one of my favourites:

One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it. [emphasis added]

- awesomestnerd, SmashBoards

Oh yes, Martin Luther was a wonderulf one, especially when it came to the Jews.

He who hears this name [God] from a Jew must inform the authorities, or else throw sow dung at him when he sees him and chase him away.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

They [rulers] must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did,

If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)



My essay, I hope, will furnish a Christian (who in any case has no desire to become a Jew) with enough material not only to defend himself against the blind, venomous Jews, but also to become the foe of the Jews' malice, lying, and cursing, and to understand not only that their belief is false but that they are surely possessed by all devils. May Christ, our dear Lord, convert them mercifully and preserve us steadfastly and immovably in the knowledge of him, which is eternal life. Amen.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

Sauce:http://nobeliefs.com/luther.htm

OLAADEGBU:
If you can just spare us the play of words and go straight to answering the question of the poster, it is not rocket science.

You're right that it isn't rocket science which is why my first post in this thread tackled the issue specifically. If you dare to go back to my first post and the follow up you will see how the questions of the op were answered. So far there have been no play of words on my part. What has occured, instead, is an avoidance of what I have written, in favour of use of words to which it's apparent you don't know the meaning.

'According to me, there is scientific evidence to buttress the notion of the non-existence of gods, but there isn't scientific evidence for the non-existence of gods. Do you see the difference? Science can be used to buttress, but not as one's categorical primary argument against all gods. That is not to say, however, that some principles of gods can't be shown to be wrong, like for instance the discovery that lightning weren't Zeus's weapons. What happens next, though, is that the "true believers" find a way to ignore that their beliefs have been falsified. A very recent example is the case of where the science of genetics showed that a central belief of the Mormon church - made by Joey Smith - were wrong. Facts still didn't deter the "true believers".'

If you cannot give us your scientific evidence then give us the scientific evidence used to buttress your point without trying to explain the Bible that you have no idea of. The Op asked for your intellectual evidence that disproves the existence of God and not what happens to an cult religious group.

All gods are similar in their non-existence. Further, all religious groups start off as cults. I have quoted what I wrote so that the context isn't lost. From it it's possible to see that what I was showing was how the veracity of the claims for the gods in question - Zeus and the Mormon god (which although they claim is the same as the Christian god, I'm distinguishing in this instance) - can be shown lacking as a result of scientific findings.

Through the former example we find grounds for disbelieving the existence of Zeus. Note, though, that the scientific discovery doesn't - and didn't - disprove the existence of Zeus for the "true believer". It was for the more rational in the instance of Hellenistic gods dogmatism that it made a difference. And through the latter example, we find grounds for disbelieving the veracity of the holy book of a claimed god because of scientifc discoveries. Again, for the "true believer" that makes little difference.

To sum up and come to a conclusion, scientific discoveries destabilise the stronghold of gods, show how claims made on their behlafs on in holy books are false. They can't disprove gods, because the "true believer" will find a way to ignore what has been proffered, even sometimes going as far as to keep screaming blindly for evidence after such has been provided.

One final point. I gave a great example of how the claims made on behalf of the Christian god can be shown to be false. The example was based on how if we follow the descriptions Paul gives of love, then contrary to what is claimed in 1st John, God can't be love.

There is nowhere that you answered the question. Prof. Hawking gave his own opinion and I told you that all the laws of the universe such as the laws of gravity, physics and mathematics was originated by God. Man discovered these laws and named them accordingly, would you say that a man who found a magnificient domicile in the desert not occupied by anyone suddenly claim that he discovered it therefore there was no need for there to be a builder? A sensible person would realise that the building was built by an intelligent designer or builder and would not jump to the foolish conclusion that because he discovered it no man was ever built it or occupied it before.

Even Prof. Hawkings would not be so foolish to jump to such conclusions, read what he had to say in the quote below:

"It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us." -- Stephen Hawking

From the bottom up. Here's the context for the Hawking quote-mine: http://www.holysmoke.org/cre014.htm You're welcome.

Second, if a man found a house then he may come to the conclsuon that there was abuilder. If, however, what he comes across is a cave, an alcove, within a mountain, he needn't consider that it was constructed by a builder, but by natural occurrences.

Finally, no, the laws were - are - described by humans. They are not construct of gods, merely functional representations of things that occur naturally. Essentially, they are constructs of speech. Human speech. The next step may then be discovering why or how those things described by laws and theories occur.

Also, if you look above you'll see scientific evidence that buttress non-belief in gods. That is unless you want scientific examples dealing with your own god.

I strongly disagree. The scientific discoveries are the very evidences of an infinite intelligent Creator who originated the laws that has kept the universe in order; the planets on their orbits in their courses and why the earth has not crashed into other planets etc. Since the discovery of the laws of gravity can you tell me how you believed it evolved?

On that we may have to agree to disagree. For some scientific discoeveries give them hope in the existence of gods; for others it shows that gods aren't necessary. Either is fine. To answer your question, I don't think gravity evolved. At least, that's what I think you're asking.

When I said you evolutionists I meant you atheistic evolutionists collectively are fund of dropping the issue of the big bang like hot potatoes by claiming that it has nothing to do with your theory of evolution. All your theories depend on your assumption on the origin of the universe and the origin of life to which none of you could ascertain. I must admit that it is only you that has taken up the challenge to prove the origin of the universe in another thread which was unconvincing. So if you are so convinced the Op wants you to produce your evidence here why the universe could exist without the existence of the Creator God. As for lying we know that you have no obligation to tell truth as long as you are not going to benefit from it, just as you deceived a few others as to your real gender when you gave the impression that you were a female before you where found out for what you are.

The Big Bang theory still has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution will still explain the orign and diversity of species without the existence of the Big Bang theory. You'll note that the theory of evolution was formulated long before the Big Bang theory.

So you admit that I have tackled the issue of the origins of the universe before? Where's the apology?

Finally, I have to laugh at your assumptions about both my honesty and the gender game. Look I don't know where you got the idea of the whole "found out for what you are" thing, but since joining I have toggled my gender between female and male at random intervals. I'll do it again soon, so there. Read into that what you will. However, since I'm not a "true Christian" - or "true Muslim", too, come to think of it - I have no need or reason to be a liar. My gender game is rooted to just Nairaland. If you want to know my true gender you'll have to ask on a different forum.

If you want me to address the Big Bang theory with you, then you have to acknowledge all the other times I've done that, particularly the ones with you participating. That's all you have to do. Repent from your lie, and show that you remember at least a little tidbit of my other posts on the subject.

I have not lied as explained above and you do not have to explain the big bang to me, all the poster is asking from you is to answer his question as an advocate of Mr B's postulation without beating about the bush.

Oh, but you have lied, darling. You wrote as a response to me: "You evolutionists have avoided the big bang theory because you know how ridiculous it has panned out to be but that is the foundation that you base your other theories like the evolutionary theory on." As for the scientific, it's funny how you guys keep missing it. Maybe I shouldn't have diversified and used gods of other religions. I should use your god in the next instance seems to be what I'm getting here.

There is no point discussing what you consider as a fairytale as that would defeat its purpose. The poster is not asking for your warped understanding and explanation of the Bible that you rarely understand because of your evolutionistic worldview that distorts your understanding. For you to understand it you will have to come down from your high horse of pride and humble yourself then you might learn a thing or two.

If you insist on using semantics on the word of God that you don't believe then you are on your own.

Again, "The Bible itself isn't a fairy tale. However, along with some history, morals and teachings, it also contains many myths and allegories. Some fabrications, too, probably."

Like I said before, if I was misunderstanding or misinterpreting the Bible y'all wouldn't be simply content to keep bleating lines about me not understanding or that I think it's a fairytale. No, instead, you guys would have been falling over yourselves to show me why and how I got the readings wrong.

Anyway, keep hope alive.

Yeah, I'm bored already. If you hade read the op, you'd have realised that the poster also asked for an intellectual based response to the non-existence of gods. Yeah, that's where inherent contradictions come into play. That's where the Christian's god and love have a conflict if the Bible is used as our source. Also, if you had bothered to read all of my posts rather than trying to give the semblance of response with drivel (that also tells me something about the effect the parts you may have read are having), you'd have seen how I address both the scientific and the, for a lack of a better word, the intellectual aspects of disbelieving that gods exist.

Only you and your deluded evolutionists can see where you have provided the answers to the questions. An advise is to learn how to summarise your stories in future.

What is it with Creationists and an aversion to reading? It explains a thing or two, though. If others can see it, then maybe the problem is you. *shrugs*

I should also add here that if you had really thought that I was confused about what 1st John and 1st Corinthians are saying, you'd have been eager - over-eager, in fact - to show where I went wrong in my analysis. As it stands, we both know that it isn't me that is confused about what those verses say.

The Bible is not like your evolution textbook that you read, it is a spiritual book where the Almighty Infinite God communicates and contacts with the finite men and women that are humble enough to admit that they are ignorant enough to learn from Him.

That's nice. The last defense of the dogamtic theist: claim no one else can read the book like the "true believer" can. Hey, it worked for the Mormons in the example I gave above. Unfortunately, It doesn't change the fact that if Paul is right, then the Judeo-Christian god isn't love.

Where you there? what did it originate from? For something to go bang it must have matter to explode, where did this matter come from originally? Answering this you might bail out your fellow atheists who have driven themselves into a rut.

Oh dear! Matter came after the Big Bang. I have told you this previously. You don't care to know. You know what, screw it, I'll start a thread on the Big Bang theory in the coming week. I have too much to do at the moment. I also have to keep in touch with real life or my lady may get pissed off. Ciao.

Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,,  and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim" (The Literal Meaning of Genesis).

"My religion is very simple. My religion is kindness."

- Tenzin Gyatso (present Dalai Lama)

"One's own thought is one's world. What a person thinks is what he becomes."

- From the Maitri Upanishads


"No peace among the nations without peace among the religions.
No peace among the religions without dialogue among the religions.
No dialogue among the religions without investigation of the foundation of the religions"
~Hans Küng